Why do I call myself anti work when I clearly understand most people need to work?

 I don't know if this is already clear or not, but I do want to clarify something. On the one hand, I support the idea that no one should have to work. On the other hand, I understand that most people do have to work. How do I reconcile that?

Well, here's the thing. Anti work isn't a movement that can be accomplished overnight. I think this is why it doesn't get taken seriously. And one thing I will criticize about Doreen, given that's still a common subject, is that she's an anarchist and has no clear goals of how to accomplish this. 

Ideas are only good, as long as they're able to be accomplished. I mean that's why I hated left wing ideas as a conservative. I saw utopian ideas as unable to be accomplished. But this...this can be accomplished. 

So, first of all, let's focus on how much work can be done away with? I think the pandemic really exposed that. We could probably get rid of up to 1/3 of our work force, which includes much of our service economy, overnight if we really wanted to. This would lead to some drawbacks, but we could still accomplish the basics of society, with only 2/3 of people working. We did it before, we can do it again. 

And then consider UBI. A UBI if around the poverty line as studied would likely have a work reduction of probably 10-15% on average. This is just raw work hours worked mind you, not people unemployed. But the 1970s NIT studies showed that among primary earners around 5-9% less hours would be worked, and it would be higher, maybe 10-30% among more secondary earners who don't contribute many hours. I think another source I've seen that looked at this said the overall reduction was around 13%. So, we can clearly see that on paper, UBI's work reduction would be within the realm of sustainability. 

Assuming UBI is implemented slowly, we probably wouldnt even notice. The economy grows yearly at a rate of 2-3% on average, if we implemented UBI over 4 or more years we could accomplish this without seeing a "recession" or drop in GDP for more than 2 quarters. So it likely wouldn't shock the economy.

Who would work? Whomever wants to. Keep in mind I'm not trying to stop people from working. If everyone gets the same $13k and people make different choices, isn't that the beauty of freedom? So many people try to measure morality in "well if everyone decided to do this would it be a bad thing?" but I look at it like this. People make different choices. They have different preferences and different tolerances. And if most people would voluntarily work with a UBI of $13k or so, and some would quit, who are we to begrudge either group? It's their choice. So as for the question of who would work...well...when subjected to the same circumstances, who wants to and who doesn't? As long as we have enough people to fill the positions that need to be filled, it doesn't matter to me.

And then we gotta consider automation. Currently automation is looked at with dread. We think "well what about the jobs?" What about them? "But how would people live if we didn't pay them?" We see this a lot. Our government is actually obsessed with preserving jobs. It's one of the reasons we hate universal healthcare. Think of the money we could save on healthcare administrators. But...it's seen as a bad thing...because jobs. So...from here we can just work on cutting out inefficiencies. If people lose their jobs...well...we have UBI. If people want to work more, we can still let the government create more jobs. I imagine the fed will be active in all of them, raising interest rates if inflation is too high, or decreasing them if too many people are "unemployed", but I say we let nature take its course there and then let the fed pull the levers whichever way is needed to ensure we keep a tight, but non coercive job market.

If people really don't want to work, and resent working, we could just automate more and more jobs. It's been said around 50% of jobs might be automated in the next 20 years. And while the jobists will say 'well there will be more jobs", some like Andrew Yang have argued it will be different this time, as new jobs will be few in number and highly skilled, while those displaced will not have the skills to do them and won't be able to find jobs. Yang sees UBI as a solution to allow us to transition into this future economy, and this is where my UBI and anti work advocacy intersects with Yang. I might be less pro work than Yang, but he is a very smart person who in my opinion clearly sees the issues with the job market in ways very few do, and is the only one who talks about reasonable solutions, and here I intersect with him.

So as far as I'm concerned, over time, maybe jobs will, and should disappear. And if they do disappear, and we have all of this productivity, then maybe the UBI should be raised in this new normal. Maybe most people will work odd jobs part time as dog walkers like Doreen. I could literally see that being the future of work for those of us who don't have advanced comp sci degrees. Some jobs will always remain, and people will do them because they see purpose in them and because they are paid for them and desire higher living standards. So let them do them as they wish. I think its fine some have work ethic more than others. Let them do the jobs if they desire to. Again, if everyone has the same UBI and everyone makes different choices, isn't it good some work and some don't? What I dont understand is this idea we need to keep creating more jobs and working the same 40 hour weeks we did in the 1930s. While 100 years ago the 40 hour work week seemed utopian, in an era where 15 hour work days were once common, these days it's like...a relic of the past. So...rather than insisting on more jobs at 40 hours a week, we could pursue fewer jobs, allowing only those who want to work, to work, and those who dont work,, to not work. And it would all happen slowly and organically.

For me, the anti work cause is not a sprint, it is a marathon. We're never gonna abolish all work over night. People make that fallacy a lot. They think, "hahaha you wanna abolish work? But we need work, imagine what would happen if everyone quit tomorrow".

Yes yes, if everyone quit tomorrow, society would implode just like the caricature in your head, you get it. But your mediocre 100 IQ take misses the point. Not all of us are anarchists who have no clue what we're talking about. I have grappled with the logistics of how. And the answer is to do what I described. Implement a UBI, make it around poverty level, let the market decide. And then let nature take its course from there. If we automate work, don't try to make new work. If we do make new work, make it productive work. Not just meaningless service jobs created just to keep the system running as is. And over time, let automation eat jobs away, and maybe reduce work hours.

Our big reason we still work like we did 100 years ago is mostly cultural. We morally believe work is right, that full employment is good, and we pursue policies that actively encourage it everyone working at 40 hours a week, while often failing a portion of the population in the process to keep inflation in check. It's just nonsense. Heck let's talk inflation. We have a society where we act like everyone has to work, but then we keep unemployment bouncing between 4% and 8% generally. That's 4-8% that are looking for work that can't find it. More discouraged workers not even included in that states. More people who are employed, but underemployed, or in jobs they hate or are a poor match for their skillset.

And then we wonder why poverty exists, and why people are unhappy. In a sense it all comes down to this insane economic policy of ours. We keep insisting everyone must work, but then we keep the economy like a game of musical chairs because if everyone who wanted a job could find one, inflation would happen. That's kind of what I was trying to say in my inflation and UBI article. Yes, the mere fact of giving people money to spend, and giving workers bargaining power, can have an inflationary effect. Our economy is rigged in a way that it only functions properly when some people are perpetually un and underemployed. yet we still insist on full employment. It's madness. No wonder I'm so disaffected from work.

My point is that while unemployment is a fact of life, we could move the goalposts of society where we stop pursuing full employment and job creation and simply give people a UBI. keep unemployment at whatever rate it needs to be to keep the system stable via the federal reserve. But....give everyone a UBI to end poverty, and also give people more freedom. And if some wish not to participate, DONT FORCE THEM. This is what I'll never get about our economy. It seems clear we can't support full employment structrually, yet we still insist on forcing everyone to work and keeping up this farce that if we dont that the system will fall apart. If the work reduction isnt catastrophic, no, it won't. We could do away with 1/3 of the work force now and still take care of everyone. And we could automate half the existing jobs in the next few decades. We could organically pursue a less pro work world. We just simply choose to continue full employment for cultural and political reasons. We don't NEED to do it. We can choose otherwise.

And that's why I'm anti work. It's not about abolishing all jobs overnight. It's recognizing that over the next several decades, we could end poverty and also greatly reduce our labor force without negatively impacting our quality of life if we wish. We just have to choose that option. We could've all this time after all. That's why John keynes said by 2030 we would only have to work 15 hour weeks. We couldve accomplished that had we structured society in a way to reduce the work we do. Instead we kept working the same work weeks in his time and kept artificially inflating the economy full of meaningless jobs to the point of absurdity and cruelty. So yeah, hopefully by 2130, we will actually hit 15 hour work weeks, or less. That is my anti work dream. And that's how we can reasonably accomplish it.

Criticizing Kyle Kulinski's position on r/antiwork

 So....Kyle Kulinski, a youtuber who I watch fairly regularly, has finally waded into the anti work topic. And...as an actual anti work person, it's cringey. 

I'm gonna be honest, for a while, I watched Kyle for sanity, and considered him to be one of the best left wing youtubers, but as I go more into UBI and anti work ideologies, the more I sometimes find myself not seeing eye to eye with him.

And...his views on r/antiwork was...kinda cringe.

Kyle really has this idea that if the system worked better a lot of people would be less anti work, and that the actual die hard "I dont want to do anything" anti work supporters are a minority of the movement. Maybe he's right, but I do want to approach this as one of those minorities of people.

I'm not gonna lie, Kyle is right that disaffection from the system contributed to me mentally checking out and becoming anti work. HOWEVER, he seems to have some idea that traditional left wing policies will bring most of us back to the fold. here's the thing. if you've actually read and agree with anti work ideology, it's too late for that.

Here's the thing about "deconversions" from mainstream ideologies, whether it be christianity to atheism, or becoming anti work. Eventually, you kind of reach a point of no return in my opinion. You eventually get to a point where before that point, yeah, maybe access to more moderate ideologies could convince me to maintain the overall ideology, but once you get past a certain point, nothing is gonna bring me back. You just become "too woke" so to speak. Once you're aware of plato's cave, there's no turning off that illusion again. I would need amnesia to do that. 

You could argue when I was questioning christianity, if I gained access to "moderate" views that I found convincing and made sense, I might've remained a christian. But in doing so I would've also stunted my own growth and continued buying into that illusion. The same goes with anti work. And being a very "early adopter" of the movement, and remembering the sub when half of it was literally Doreen's blog posts (hence why I'm such a defender of hers), I've long since reached that point of no return.

Here's the thing. I NEVER liked work. Something inside me has ALWAYS had a revulsion to work. Part of it was seeing my dad being miserable with work. My whole life has been watching him getting crapped on by all of these different companies who used him and abused him and then threw him away when they were done. I never really had a positive role model in my life as far as work goes. My dad always had a strong work ETHIC mind you, and did, at some level, buy into the gospel of jobs, but...seeing what it did to him and how he clearly wasn't happy made me known to his true feelings. Much of my young adulthood has been about trying to avoid ending up like him. I went to college so I WOULDN'T end up like him. For many of us millennials, college was pushed by the boomer generation as the way to get away from the grind that our parents had to go through and to lead a much cushier life. The problem is we ended up finding out that all of us going to college just oversaturated the market, making each individual millennial far less likely to be able to attain that dream. The reason college was a pathway to success for boomers was because so few boomers went, and most boomers just got full time jobs out of high school that they still managed to feed a family on. They were hard jobs, jobs that made many of them deeply unhappy with their lives on some level, but they paid the bills. After we graduated, after being told to go to college or we'd end up working in mcdonalds, then we were told "what are you too good to work in mcdonalds now college boy?" and then shamed for our choices of going. Many of us didnt know what we were doing with our lives. We just didnt wanna end up like our parents so saw it as a path to an easier life and affluence, we could not be more wrong. 

But, I digress. I'll come back to this later, but I do want to discuss other childhood factors. Here's the thing. Much like Doreen, I'm autistic. And autistic people seem to tend to hate the working world. We don't adapt to it well, and for me, while I initially remember looking forward to school when I was like 3-4...by the time i hit 2nd grade, i HATED it. It was all about the structure of it, the expectations, the routine, and...the work. Like...I didn't adjust well to school, being an undiagnosed autistic kid in the 1990s before people actually understood widely what aspergers and the like was. So...I initially didnt adapt well to it. I would always get punished for not following directions, I didn't understand what I did wrong, and I didn't take well to the conditioning that was imposed on me. I remember the first time we were assigned homework in kindergarten, I did it right there, and handed it to the teacher a few minutes later. They yelled at me and told me I was supposed to do it at home. Why should I do it at home I wondered? I just did it here? but no...these guys insisted on me doing it at home, to condition me to be more willing to accept doing work at home. That's the thing about school. It isn't just about teaching you academic subjects. It's a matter of behavioral modification to indoctrinate/brainwash you for a future of work. So, I was disciplined constantly, i didn't get it, and eventually my behavior straightened out, but let's face it, I was doing what autistic people call "masking" where the behavioral modifications I went through were all about reward/punishment. This is normal for NT kids, but let's face it, it's all that really motivated me. Eventually I went on to kohlberg's good boy/girl syndrome where I started doing things to be good, but let's face it, i still largely adopted a fear of punishment approach to it. By high school I became the goody two shoes who accepted the system and became like, the most obnoxious rule follower possible. Always getting on my more rebellious classmates, blah blah blah. But ultimately, all throughout the time, I hated work. I always saw it as something that needed to be done, but that's all that drove me. I was never a fetishist for work itself, I just accepted, okay, crap needs to get done, so I'm gonna do the crap. And honestly? I LIVED for summer. 

In high school we started having this thing called study hall where we COULD do our homework in school? And I avoided all extracurriculars in order to maximize those periods. And I just did all my work at school, so I could go home and be free. And come summer, I would look forward to that glorious 3 months of the year I could do whatever I wanted. I HATED the idea of going back to school. Starting around july 4th, I'd look to september with dread, counting down the weeks, often crying and having breakdowns the weekend before going back. 

And the idea of getting a job on top of school seemed hellish. Why? I go to school every day from 8 until 3, why should I wanna work my evenings away on top of it? When i turned 16 I never desired a car. I didn't wanna go anywhere. If I got a car, I'd have to get a job. ANd then I'd use the car exclusively to go to work, which I would use to pay for the car. And it never made sense to me. 

That brings me to college. In college, I just wanted to do my classes and go home. I didn't have any real world experience. I just focused on getting As, and i knew if i worked, I'd probably suffer a mental breakdown on top of school, which occupied literally all of my time. Here's the thing about college. You only have like 12 hours of classes, but we were expected to study for like 4 hours per hour of class outside of our classes. So in reality school was like a 60 hour week with all the studying I did. I barely had time to myself. I hated it. The only thing that kept me sane was the long breaks between vacations. 

And then the recession happened. And I would say that's where my political attitudes started to change. I was originally very conservative. I was drawn to politics in my high school years, as a conservative christian who listened to rush limbaugh a lot. My parents were fans, so I became a fan, and I ate up everything the dude said. And of course he was a work worshipper too. But honestly, I never really adopted that. Here was my attitude, as a teenage conservative whose views came from my parents. I didn't like the idea of work. I hated the idea of work. But...I understood that we needed everyone to work for society to function. If we didn't have everyone working, people would starve to death. And of course welfare was wrong, because it was redistributing work from people who actually worked for it, to people who didn't. And of course, there was real resentment there, but here's the thing, as someone who is anti work now. That resentment, for me, came down to "okay, why do I have to be miserable only for my taxes to pay for freeloaders? they should get jobs too." That's kind of the thing about the whole hating free money going to people idea among the right. A lot of it is based on the fact that a lot of them are miserable working, they dont LIKE it, but they have to do it, and they dont wanna pay for people who skirt their burden. I think that resentment is why anti work ideas are so unpopular. I think most people actually hate this crap, but they have to do it, so they do and they want everyone else to suffer like them. Another idea I had at the time was that we actually did need everyone to work and that there literally wasn't enough to go around and that society was dog eat dog. It wasn't nice, it wasn't fair, it just was. And the problem with liberals, socialists, and utopians is they often have these great ideas, but if they actually implemented them, it would end up like the USSR, and would be far worse. So, for the longest time, the big thing that stopped me from moving left was the fact that I just saw left wing ideas as not able to be done without hurting society. It was all functionalism for me. I didnt LIKE work. I just understood we all ahted it but we still had to do it. 

But again, then the recession happened. And while I initially remained very right wing, my dad got treated like crap some more, and got fired from his boss who claimed record profits, but in order to keep them he had to lay him off. And then my dad couldnt find a new job for over a year, and we were only held together by Obama's extended unemployment. I kind of realized at this time, hey, government safety nets are necessary and actually work. So I softened on them. I also saw republicans trying to cut them, which led to me turning on them. Their argument was they needed tax cuts to create jobs. But they already had record amounts of money, and were cutting staff...see the problem?

The recession revealed the farce for me. Between this, and taking econ in college, I started piecing together things. Like....employers dont hire people to give people jobs, they hire people to make money. They dont give a crap about you. As evidenced by my dad over the course of my life. They will use you, and then get rid of you when they don't need you. And the recession taught me the realities of unemployment. Unemployment is...a thing in societies. For most of my life, getting a job had been easy. my dad was never out of work, even though he had to jump ship from individual companies over bad working conditions. And I kinda just assumed that was how it was. Jobs were plentiful, you could always find one, after all we needed people to work, but i kinda realized, no we actually have people unemployed who couldn't find jobs. I started realizing, doing math and the like, that we actually have A TON to go around. We have like $50k for each individual member of society, enough to give people a middle class life style, yet...income inequality is insane, with many people in poverty, many can't even find jobs, and honestly, to quote George Carlin, no one seems to notice, no one seems to care. 

And then I exited college and had to join the work force. And MAN was THAT a rude awakening. I entered the common dilemma an early 2010s graduate faced in the recession. No one wants to hire you without experience, and you need a job to get experience. Given the openings in my area being barely existent on the educated level in the first place, and my degree being a poor match for most jobs, I kinda realized I was screwed. I became an atheist around this time due to a lot of the same patterns going on in other areas of my life, and I just couldn't believe any more, and that made me even more pliable politically as the existential fallout from that had me questioning EVERYTHING. I was leaving plato's cave...around 2012. 

And just...not being able to find a job, it wore on me. I would surf reddit, and realize that we had hundreds of people applying for single openings. That half the people were being laid off and the other half told to pick up the slack and join them. And understanding economics and what was going on I kinda realized...we legitmately just didn't have enough jobs in society. We always like to act like we need everyone working, but at the end of the day, there's wide swaths of the population that arent even hireable. It was ridiculous, we all had to beg for jobs, tell employers what hard workers we are and blah blah blah. But...at the end of the day...that's what it was. Too many people applying to too few jobs. Often times without many people even having jobs that were suitable to them, and many people in the economy underemployed or disengaged with bad jobs that didn't even suit them.

And what were the powers that be doing? Obama would get up there and talk about "we need to create more jobs"....and something about that seemed wrong to me. Sure more jobs would help, but the jobs were so called "shovel ready jobs" that many people criticized, since most jobs created were low wage minimum wage jobs no one wanted to do. It was a recipe for misery. So yeah, kyle's right, the system failing us kinda made us check out, but let's think about WHY I checked out.

Around 2012, I realized my whole life up to that point had basically been a lie. I believed, as a christian, that I had a purpose in this world, and I majored in politics in order to get a job to change things for the better. Initially this "changing things for the better" meant more conservatism and more jesus in government. But...as I oftened on things and eventually became an atheist, I realized no one out there was really looking out for me. And looking at the economy I realized that there just wasnt an ideal job for everyone. We can try to create jobs for everyone, but are you really going to get a match for everyone? And honestly, do these jobs even need to be done? And in a lot of ways, I got nos as answers. I mean I kinda realized we were just making jobs for the sake of making jobs. The idea that we needed everyone working was a massive lie, we just pursue policies that aim for full employment, and we act like we need everyone employed when we have this massive consumption engine that artificially increases demand, that just further spurs employment. It was a farce. 

And while I hadn't all put it together yet, the disillusionment ran deep for me. And a big thing I wanted to focus on, even when i was still in grad school, was some sort of policy to save the american dream as I called it. By this, I meant the good life. But, in grad school I ended up going in a different direction wth my final project so I focused on that. So I didn't really hit it big until 2013 with that, when I discovered basic income. I came across the subreddit totally by chance. It was small. But the user base was passionate. I asked them questions, about how to pay for it, whether people would work...and they would give me answers. Good answers. I asked for studies, and they would give me studies. I was getting hard evidence it could work. And this just led me further down the rabbit hole. I researched it thoroughly, and the more I did so, I just became more and more convinced that this is what America needed. I even took it upon myself to try to solve what I considered the biggest problem I saw with it, which was funding, hence why I focus on that so much. I used my political science skills to research the issue and create plans for it that I believe could work. 

UBI would've been unfathomable to me as a conservative. I would've considered it communism. After all, that was what communism was right? Taking everyone's income and redistributing it to people equally. And that destroys all incentive to work right? Of course, that was propaganda. Turns out if you only give people a poverty line amount that most would work. And it turned out, most people actually wanted to work to some extent, which as I realized I was autistic, really made more sense to me. I dislike work in part because I am autistic and it never resonated with me and was imposed on me. But most "normal" people? yeah they like to work. So maybe kyle has a point there. But at the same time, I kept researching. Also from a conservative perspective, I hated the idea of welfare and giving money to those who don't deserve it, but at the root of that, it was because I would be forced to work, and then forced to pay taxes. if everyone was given a UBI and allowed to make different choices, was that bad? No, that was freedom. I only begrudged welfare because I couldn't get a check. But if everyone gets a UBI check? I could live with that. Rahter than exploiting the system, being able to say no was part of the system, and was a freedom afforded to every american.

Through my UBI studies, I came across r/antiwork in 2014ish. It was a new subreddit then, and Doreen was arguably the most active poster there. I can say this because I remember her plugging abolishwork.com all the time and that being a regular aspect of the sub. It almost seemed like it was Doreen's sub to spread her anti work views. And I actually read some of the stuff she posted, and like UBI, atheism, and all of these quite frankly heretical ideas that would make the old conservative christian me have an aneurysm, anti work...started making sense. I kinda realized, yeah, jobism IS an issue. The idea that jobs are the solution to all our ills in the economy. And that maybe we should pursue UBI. Karl Widerquist helped too, as I remember him posting his indepentarian theory in the basic income sub, and me reading his book through that. And I thought it was the most brilliant and prolific piece of modern philosophy that I read. And yeah, given the direction I was going with my disaffection of work, and the economy, it made sense. We have all of these people forced to apply for jobs, the jobs arent there, it's a numbers problem, and this numbers problem will never be solved through normal means, so we need a UBI to fix capitalism. It made sense. Some anti work ideology actually is a good thing, and over the next few decades automation is gonna do a number on the job market, meaning that peoples' faith in jobs will begin to fail, so, I kind of saw UBI as inevitable, even if a long way off.

Of course, for the most part, I dont really express my anti work views as plainly as I've been doing here. Why? Because I understood America isn't there yet. So when Bernie Sanders supported some of my goals, but still supported some aspects of the gospel of work, I just saw it as a necessary evil and saw that battle as a battle to be had in the future.

But...then the democrats went on neoliberal on us, and Trump won, and things got worse, and then Yang ran on UBI, painting a more acute picture of how screwed the American economy is, and then COVID happened, and with COVID, I realized the time was right for these ideas. r/antiwork exploded in popularity, we clearly had a society with a whole 1/3 of the work force not working, and I just realized, the future is now. And given the tensions among the more traditional left, I've just mentally clocked out. Screw the centrists, screw the bernie bros who are descending further and further into literal socialism, just screw it all. And Yang comes along pushes a 3rd party, and then r/antiwork becomes popular as the great resignation took off, and it just made me even more firm.

So...at this point, and I know I just rambled a lot...do I even want a leftist movement to "save work"? HELL NO. Screw work. Work sucks. Let it die. We should stop pursuing more jobs. We should give people a UBI, let people have the right to say no, and let the market decide from there. After all that's "freedom" right? Oh wait, the free market is suddenly not supported by the rich when the shoe is on the other foot? And then you have these traditional leftists promoting the same gospel of work...and honestly...I dont want work to be saved dog. Maybe back 10 years ago in 2012 you could've saved me in that sense by making the system work, but at this point, I've just gone too deep down the rabbit hole. I've grappled with the fundamentals of the economy, my dislike of work has never waned, and honestly, knowing what I know now...no. SCREW WORK! I dont just want to create more jobs and have everything to be fine. I dont wanna go back into plato's cave. So no, kyle, no. Maybe I am in a minority here. But you know what? Coming back to spirituality, and getting a temperature for how things are on that side of things, I'm starting to think my whole purpose for being here, and that included all that deconversion crap, was all to prepare me for this. maybe I'm SUPPOSED to be anti work. maybe my reason for being here is to spread anti work ideas. It makes sense. People who have my kind of spiritual awakening experiences are often here for a reason, there is a reason after all, and maybe I'm supposed to promote this stuff. I don't know. Heck, it's weird I actually read a spiritual book recently and in it "God" advocated for what seemed to be a form of UBI. It was weird (Conversations with God Part 2 if anyone is interested). So idk. I just don't have it in me to want to be pro work. it goes against my being. My whole childhood was just a ton of indoctrination to get me to accept work, and that has all been undone through my experiences. I hate work with my very being, and I seek to oppose it. 

Am I in a minority? Maybe. Maybe some people aren't "awakened" enough to get it. It sure seems that way given how fast the sub turned on Doreen. I admit, the interview was bad, but honestly? It was just a bad tactical decision, and a lot of bad optics. I wouldnt say Doreen somehow strawmanned the anti work movement or misrepresented it. She IS the face of the actual anti work movement. The problem is, most of the people who joined didn't seem to know what they were signing up for. 

But yeah. Either way, I disagree with kyle completely. Screw work. It's not a concept worth saving for me. What I want more than anything else, is my freedom to say no. I look at work with a sense of existential dread. I literally feel like I'm selling myself into slavery whenever I submit an application. It feels wrong for me. The whole system is wrong. I'm not against voluntary transactions, but how voluntary is this, really? And being an indepentarian, trying to make work right for me, feels...wrong. You can't just tell a person, "hey I made work just again, now you have no reason to say no". The very act of coercion is wrong. It doesn't matter to me if it's capitalism, socialism, whatever. The only justification that only made sense for the coercion of work is the necessity of it, and given how unnecessary it is and how we could have a system far less coercive...I would rather do that. 

So no, Kyle, no. I don't want "work" to be made right for me. I dont want the big casino turned into the big collective. As Karl Widerquist would say, you can make the jobs, you can make them as good as you can, but it's ultimately up to us to decide whether they're acceptable. Labor reform is fine, but we DO need a right to say no.

Thankfully Kyle mentioned UBI so maybe he does understand a UBI is needed, but...yeah no. As someone who actually IS anti work...it's like...no. I just fundamentally hate this system with every fiber of my being. Screw work. We shouldnt seek to create MORE of it. We should strive to minimize it. It won't happen overnight, but it should be a long term goal.

Criticizing Doreen Ford's anti work position

 So, in honor of Doreen getting kicked off of the sub, I managed to finally get the motivation to read her book, Abolish Work: A Lazy Exposition of Philosophical Ergophobia. if you're wondering why it says Nick Ford in the author name, it's because she's trans, and Nick is her old name. So same person, different gender. I at least try to respect gender identities, so...I will be going by her preferred name and pronouns. 

Anyway, most of this book was basically a collection of anti work essays she collated, but I do want to focus on her closing statements. IN this closing statement, I made the following points I want to address.

1) She opposes UBI because she fears a world in which labor doesn't have the power to fight back due to automation.

2) She supports "game-ifying" work, basically turning work into play.

3) She supports anarchism, but doesn't have a super clear view of what an actual anarchistic world would look like

So, without further ado, to address these points.

1) She opposes UBI because she fears a world in which labor doesn't have the power to fight back due to automation.

 Her logic here is a direct criticism on my anti work vision, which is why I felt compelled to address this. Basically it goes like this. If we have a UBI, and it leads to a less work centric world, automation will happen, but the means of production will remain in the hands of the powerful. She fears this will cause the world to fall into dystopia, in which the gains of UBI are not distributed well due to UBI being a poverty level UBI, and jobs disappearing. So she fears a world of extreme income inequality, and also the fact that in such a world, labor would lose their biggest strength, their ability to strike and take direct action via companies.

This is such...a leftist take on things. It almost seems like it isn't anti work at all. As I see it, the left romanticizes labor. They see the struggle of the worker against capitalism as essential, and that makes me question how anti work they actually are. We should celebrate technological unemployment in a sane society. More technological unemployment means more freedom. And it means less work. 

Now, distribution in such a society in the future is problematic. But...that's for future generations to figure out. As I see it, we'll never see this world in our lifetimes, assuming you're 20 or older and you're reading this. Work, in the foreseeable future, will remain in some form, and while I see it changing drastically over the rest of my life, there will almost always be some work to do. Whether you can live on those wages is questionable, given I see traditional employment being replaced by the gig and service economy for most, but there will always need to be work done. Again, my UBI is only a poverty line level UBI for a reason. And a huge part of that is because we still need labor. In the future, the social contract might need to be rewritten. And I'm okay with that. UBI and human centered capitalism is my goal, but as I've stated before, this goal is only valid for maybe the next 50-100 years. After that it might just become another old ideology where a new ideology comes around to replace it. And maybe by then, socialism or a much higher UBI with much higher levels of taxation would make sense. It doesn't now, arguably, but in the future it would.

Why not pursue leftism now? Well, because socialism, given the current needs of society, sucks. Moderate socialism like market socialism solves nothing to me, and extreme socialism leads to tyranny. And anarchism, well much like Doreen, I cant even wrap my head around how it would WORK. And if I cant figure that out, as I see it, I have no business advocating for it. I only support ideas I know that work. Look at my inflation article about UBI. I was able to say, okay if this happens, it means this went wrong and this is how you fix that. Thats what I mean by being able to understand things. I understand how the policy works, have an idea of the outcomes, and I know how to course correct. For me, Doreen's concern is a concern for the next generation. By the time it actually happens, we will be long dead, and the people working on that set of problems can research and figure out where they wanna go from here. It's not my concern now.

I feel like leftists tend to be weird like that. They're just so wrapped up in their ideology like obsession with labor and blah blah blah that it compromises their anti work vision. They cant wrap their heads around a world in which people laboring isnt leverage against the system, because that's how their system works. I wonder if they can even comprehend of a true anti work world, because their obsession with labor makes them rigid in that sense. 

2) She supports "game-ifying" work, basically turning work into play.

 Doreen, being an anarchist, has a weird view of work. She opposes wage slavery, which is valid, but still assumes work has to be done, and in her hypothetical anarchistic world, sees work being done in a playful way. Basically, by making tasks "play", it makes them more fun to do them, increasing incentives without monetary rewards. But...idk. Like, to me, work is work. Wage labor and being forced to work for a boss adds an additional level of oppression to it, but honestly...I'm both anti wage labor and against work as a concept. I support technological innovation to make our lives easier. We used to fill our days with mundane tasks like washing clothes. Then we made clothes washers and then we started doing something else. See the problem? We create labor saving devices over time, but we never truly enjoy them, because our work oriented mindsets make more work. We're like, okay, this freed up time for us to do other work, so now we do other work. But for me, I think there comes a time when we should just save time and spend more time doing NOT work. And again, thats why I support automation. Doreen sees automation as a potential issue, but I dont. I see it as liberation. And if we can phase out work over time through automation without just insisting on making more work, we would all be better off for it. 

Turning work into games doesn't make it not work for me, sorry. if anything a problematic trend ive noticed in games is they're turning more into work. They are adding tons of artificial grinding systems and battle passes and fomo to keep people playing and grinding for artificial rewards. Sometimes I play games not because I want to but because i wanna get a certain reward before the time limit runs out.It's BS, and it makes games less fun. 

If you do the opposite, turning work into games, that might soften the blow, but I'll still know it's work. Because the tasks would be inherently not fun to me.

3) She supports anarchism, but doesn't have a super clear view of what an actual anarchistic world would look like

 So she basically admitted her conception of an anarchistic anti work world is fuzzy because she can't fully grasp the concept of anarchism...yeah no crap. I dont support anarchism for the same reasons. It's a problem with leftism in general. They have a lot of theories about how capitalism bad because xyz, but when they have to come up with solutions that work, they end up speaking in generalities and dont understand what they're advocating for.

With me, I stick with what works. Which is why i support human centered capitalism. I can understand things like UBI as policy, predicting benefits, costs, as well as how this could shift the country culturally. And I can anticipate problems, develop countermeasures for them, and design the policy to minimize and avoid them as much as possible in the first place. WHen you advocate for something as extreme as abolishing the state and the work place...you better have done your homework. Not doing so would lead to potential disaster. There's a joke among liberals of the anti far left about "what would your job be on the commune after the revolution?" and the answer is always some theory teacher. Heck Doreen said on fox she wishes to teach philosophy so typical leftist in that sense. But in reality, we need people to grow crops, and gather natural resources, and make things, and provide services to people. And these guys dont understand that if they got their way, they'd probably be forced in more oppressive ways to do those things.

Look, wage slavery sucks, but it beats some communist forcing me to work or go to the gulag by gunpoint. These revolutions never go the way leftists think they do, and often lead to a worse world. I know some out there support the likes of China, and the USSR, and North Korea. Doreen doesn't, she seemed to explicitly dislike tankies in my discussions with her and her friends on r/antiwork before, but...ya know? Those kinds of left wing radical shifts tend to...go that way. Even if you dont intend for them. Precisely because you guys dont actually know what the post revolution landscape will be like. And as the reality of things sets in, what ends up happening is some tyrant auth left comes in, realizes we need crops grown, and resources mined, blah blah blah, so they force everyone to, by gunpoint.

Actual leftist objectives are horrifying in practice. This is why I'm not a leftist. These guys advocate for ideas that cant work, and in practice might end up far worse than they advocate for.

I know people like Doreen dont think it will turn out this way. But....we need policies that actually get to our goals in concrete ways. People might fear a future where capitalists own the means of production and jobs are automated. And maybe it is a concern. But that concern is generations away as I see it. My goals would work with the current system, to accomplish that which can be accomplished now. UBI can happen. I did the math, I studied the likely effects, I did my research. Leftists might not always like the implications of it within their ideology, but on the flip side I dont think they've thought out their ideology logistically themselves.

I dont see the revolution as leading to a positive outcome. I cant imagine this ideal anarchistic world where everyone plays and kinda sorta does some work. No, if we want an anti work future, it's gonna realistically happen through automation and safety nets like UBI. And that's why I support what we do. That isn't to say I have the answer to Doreen's concern. But let's face it, Doreen's concern isn't gonna materialize in our lifetimes, if it ever does, and if it does, well, perhaps some form of communism or socialism or anarchism would make more sense. Or perhaps they can just lobby as citizens for higher levels of UBI. Either way that's a battle for the distant future as I see it. For now, if we could just get a UBI, that would be a game changer in itself. Maybe in 2122 the issues will be different where the concerns are different, but in 2022, it's the path for the future as I see it.

Discussing r/workreform's stated goals: can I support them?

 So...r/workreform has finally implemented a solid credo outlining their beliefs at this time. While still subject to change and evolution as it's a new sub, it establishes a baseline of what they're about. Now...I've been critical of r/workreform in the past, it seemed to be a mild reformist sub made by people who broke off from r/antiwork due to doreengate and not seeming to understand the point of the subreddit. That said, with their stated goals, what do I think?

Some of our core beliefs:

People should not be worked to death.

I mean, sure...seems like a given, considering the long hours many r/antiwork posters suffer through.

 People should be paid a living wage for their labor.

This is basic left wing labor politics at this point.

 Income inequality and power inequality are the primary causes of social strife and lower living standards.

Uh...sure. I mean, the indepentarian in me kind of agrees with that. Of course for me the problem is those things compelling people to work in the first place.

Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.

 This is sounding a little labor theory of value-y...rather than antiwork-y.

We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues. 

 Sure, but different ideologies lead to different approaches to the issue, and we're not always gonna agree. 

So far I'm mixed. They have some good stuff here, but I suspect it's a bit basic and not digging deep enough to understand the real issues as I see them. This just seems like traditional labor politics to me.

Of course for a mild reformist sub that rejected actual anti work politics, maybe that's to be expected.

Some of our specific goals:

Better compensation (higher, living wages).

 A minimum wage is like...so basic though.

Better worker representation in the workforce, including but not limited to unions.

 This is looking like traditional labor politics.

Better and fewer working hours.

That's more like it, but still a bit of an incremental reform.

 Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.

 This is just traditional labor politics

Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first. 

 So yeah...traditional labor politics.

This is just traditional labor politics. Unions, organizing, minimum wage. Big deal. 

How will we achieve these goals?

As a community, r/WorkReform seeks to educate both itself and the wider reddit community about ways to EMPOWER WORKERS. This includes education about how to organize your own workplace and other ways to agitate for higher standards of living in your communities.

As a subreddit community, our touchstone question is: Does this help improve worker quality of life?

 I mean sure, but this seems like a step backwards from r/antiwork. What about nonworkers? I guess they dont care, given how much they crapped on Doreen Ford, for example. 

 Going Forward

This is a brand-new community, and it’s likely these principles and goals will significantly expand and evolve! And perhaps be codified into a mission statement one day soon. But for now…

This is your movement. Let's join together and fight for Work Reform!

 What do YOU think we as a community could do best to improve working conditions?

 Honestly, this community is kind of lame compared to r/antiwork. I'm gonna be honest, I don't always agree with Doreen Ford and the hardline anarchists on r/antiwork myself, but....this is just standard pro work labor politics. Which is okay...but honestly, as I've been saying all week, I'm actually ANTI WORK. Like, I'm in the opinion as far as views go, Doreen Ford did nothing wrong. How dare she actually be an anti work person who not work full time. I mean really.

So I'm gonna be honest, this work reform sub is a bit lame.

However, I will stipulate one thing that will get me on their side, and I tried to express this myself in this thread.

For me to support the movement, they need to support a UBI. Most UBI supporters aren't full on anti work. Some are work reformists. After all, as expressed in my previous article, given how labor dependent our society is, we can't just go full on anti work overnight. UBI would be a stepping stone allowing us to organically move that way in my mind. But we can't just...do it now. Again, too much inflation would happen if we did. 

But that said, UBI would be a suitable compromise, that's not really a compromise, as I'm perfectly willing to work with the UBI movement in general to get toward my goals.

Some other users also echoed the need for a universal healthcare system arguing we need to decouple healthcare from work. I agree. That's another goal I share.

Honestly, I can get behind movements that support UBI and universal healthcare. Movements against those things...don't typically get my support. If r/workreform supports those things I'll support them, otherwise I'm a bit leery of this new spinoff movement as it just seems a more mild coopted version of r/antiwork that divorces it from its actual anti work goals.

Discussing inflation and UBI...

 So....I get this a lot. Probably the biggest objection to UBI I've been hearing recently hasn't actually been about affordability. It has been about inflation. People just assume if you give people a UBI the price of everything will go up. And of course, while there is a grain of truth to this, it's mostly nonsense, and here's why.

The causes of inflation

According to business insider, there are six major causes of inflation:

1) Demand pull - More demand = prices go up

2) Cost push - Higher costs to make stuff = prices go up

3) Increased money supply - More money in the system = prices go up

4) Devaluation - Currency worth less = prices go up

5) Rising wages - higher wages = prices go up

6) Policies and regulations - More regulations = cost of doing business can go up

If we really want, we can simplify this further for the sake of discussion. Devaluation of currency isn't relevant to UBI, and in a sense increased money supply is the closest worry to that. And of course rising wages and policies and regulations are basically just forms of cost push regulations. The costs of making stuff goes up, so that leads to inflation.

So for the sake of discussion, let's focus on the following three things, as they are the most relevant to UBI discussions.

Increase in the money supply

Demand pull inflation

Cost push inflation

Increase in the money supply: the elephant in the room

So, there seems to be some misunderstanding about UBI in the sense that when people think about UBI, they think of helicopter money. Like we're just dumping tons of money into the economy that otherwise doesn't exist, and that in doing so, it causes an inflationary effect as it devalues the value of our currency, and the prices go up to meet the limited demand for goods. To put things simply, if there's $10 trillion in the economy, burgers might cost $5. If you increase that to $20 trillion while having the same amount of burgers, well, the burger might end up being $10. So by doubling the money supply for a fixed number of goods, you might double the prices.

Of course, UBI is NOT THAT. UBI is income redistribution. For every dollar put into the system via UBI, there is a dollar taken from somewhere else, at least in MY plan. This is why I am so picky with UBI plans that I try to insist on funding UBI from a balanced budget. I'm not trying to inject unsourced cash into the economy. I take roughly 1/5 of the cost of UBI from existing spending in other social services, and the other 4/5 come from taxes on existing sources of income. 

So if there's only $15 trillion in the economy, the amount of money that will exist after I implement UBI is still $15 trillion. I just took money away from some sources and gave them to other sources. I might eliminate food stamps and give that poor person a UBI instead. I might tax middle class families for a significant portion of the UBI only to give it back to them in UBI. My UBI is really just a glorified negative income tax, where people at the bottom get a guaranteed safety net and then people, as they work, face increased tax burden where they pay back their UBI over time. The break even point under my plan comes out to around $70k or so for an individual, or anywhere from $100k to $200k for the average household, depending on the makeup of that household. 

Demand pull inflation: but won't a more equitable level of income equality lead to an increase in demand?

I mean, yes, it technically will. Poor people spend their money, middle class people save it, the rich invest it. So poor and middle class people will spend more in the economy causing relatively small increases in aggregate demand. 

Now...is this a bad thing? No. It really depends on how much. SOME inflation is good in the sense that it shows that people are willing to spend and buy things, and spending and buying things will grow the economy. And you know what? The same kinds of inflation need not happen just from a UBI. A minimum wage increase could cause a similar increase in demand. I mean if we really want no inflation, that's bad, because that means people have no money to spend and are poor as crap, and a huge problem with our monetary policy since the 1980s has been, outside of our current crisis, that we have been too inflation conscious. We have been spooked by inflation due to the 1970s stagflation that we overcompensated in ways that made normal americans poorer and more squeezed at work. So by increasing their money, we make them better off and more able to demand goods and services, but that could have a small inflationary effect. What matters is how much? 2% inflation might be too low. 5-6% might be excessive. Maybe we should aim for 3% or so. It also depends on what things people demand.

 Everyone who makes this argument is thinking first and foremost about rent going up, as if landlords are evil people with mustaches that they play with as they think of arbitrarily raising rent by $1000 a month if we give them a UBI. But....as we already discussed, the money supply isnt changed, and that extra $1000 might come at the expense of existing social services or tax breaks or increased taxes. So not everyone will just magically have $1000 a month. And since housing is a good people need regardless, the odds of aggregate demand of rent going up isn't that high. I mean, you might have that 1-2% of homeless people seeking to afford apartments now, and maybe a few would seek to upgrade their housing a bit, but mostly...demand should remain the same. It seems to be a relatively inelastic good people need and demand is gonna be high regardless. And let's be honest, we discussed the housing market already in previous articles. The vast majority of housing pricing is determined sheerly by supply and demand. Banks run at a very low profit margin of 1%, and while landlords have a higher 13% or so profit margin, they still only make in net a couple hundred dollars per apartment, and can only live comfortable if they own several, if not dozens of properties. The vast majority of housing costs are just...what the costs are.

I know the socialists who make this argument will think I'm defending landlords here, but let's break down their ideology a bit to see where they're coming from. They tend to adopt the so called labor theory of value, claiming that all value of things comes from, and belongs to, those who work. Landlords do not acquire money via working per se, but ownership. They own properties and rent them out to others. And they think of them as parasites, extracting surplus value from workers in an unjust way. They believe that landlords existing is unjust, and that they can just arbitrarily increase their prices at a whim to force people to pay more.

Except...as we discussed, they only make a couple hundred dollars in profit. While we can discuss the idea of landlords essentially being the scalpers of housing, they cant just arbitrarily raise prices by $500 one day. In doing so they will lose tenants, who would instead seek housing elsewhere. Housing is a tricky subject that deserves more study and potentially more solutions that go beyond merely implementing a UBI (I think the idea of creating more public housing is a good thing for example, as well as a targeted land value tax), but let's be honest, if the overall SUPPLY OF MONEY remains THE SAME, and the DEMAND FOR HOUSING remains THE SAME, then why would rent go up? 

[EDIT: Actually I researched this further after some debate, and I would like to elaborate on this. Yes, UBI may raise rents a little bit. However, it would likely do so the way the minimum wage raises rent. Essentially, while UBI does not increase the money supply and would be offset by higher taxes and reduced government services otherwise, the mere redistribution of income to the poor may cause some people to seek to improve their housing situation, which could encourage people to demand more housing. Two people who currently rent together might decide to rent separate apartments if their financial situation improves too much, and this could cause demand pull inflation. Still, the effects of this remain to be seen given UBI IS offset by these other factors. I would still expect the effect to be a net positive overall, with more being able to afford SOME housing situation, so I could see homelessness going down. I just felt a need to offer this correction. I do want to reiterate the actual cause of inflation here would be from the demand side. It wouldn't be landlords gauging just because. It would be because more demand strains the housing market which is already limited in supply, which would drive prices up until a new equilibrium is reached.]

Instead, what people need to worry about with inflation is in some of the same kinds of consumer goods and services we're seeing inflation in right now. Stuff like hotels, because people might wanna go on more vacations (that said housing in touristy areas MIGHT actually go up). Or electronics, looking at you, people who wanna buy graphics cards or a new PS5 or Xbox Series X. You know, luxury goods. That's probably where most of the demand would happen. Even then, I don't think that would be as crazy as they are right now. I mean there are real silicon shortages in the supply chain leading to the increases in those prices, so that's actually a COST PUSH form of inflation. And on the demand side, the big problem is all that crypto mining. Internet funny money is ruining PC gaming. There I said it. Screw crypto, screw "bitcoin" and "blockchain" and all of that nonsense. That's the problem. And while we would have increased demand for that stuff in a world with UBI, you might have $300 GPUs cost $350 or $400...not $300 GPUs costing $800 like they do now. 

So...let's be honest. Is a world like that worth it? If poverty is eliminated and median household income increases by like 20-30%, sure. We might see fewer yachts, but more people demanding luxury goods. Most forms of essential goods would likely remain the same as demand is gonna be high regardless. 

Nobody wants to work anymore: Cost push inflation

So, now to address the real elephant in the room, which we see often about UBI, and that is the idea of cost push inflation. It's not JUST the fact that there is higher demand from people having more money, it's that input might go down from fewer people working, and higher costs to things like wages.

First, let's address wages. Okay, so many of these leftists are often pushing for higher wages. The same ones who scream about inflation, are also the ones pushing for a $15, or even a $20-25 minimum wage these days. That would cause inflation in and of itself. So once again, let's get over ourselves and not forget that any left wing approach to helping people would lead to inflation. It would lead to more demand on the consumer side, as discussed above, but it would also lead to higher costs for businesses. 

But, in practice, the bark is more than its bite. I always used to make this argument about the minimum wage, if the minimum wage doubled, and prices of stuff raised by only 20%, because keep in mind wages are only one of many factors that goes into the costs of production, ignoring the costs of raw resources and renting out space for things, and taxes, etc. so let's not act like if you double minimum wage prices will double. No, just like before you might see a mild inflationary spike followed by a return to normal. And if implemented reasonably over time, you wouldn't see much of a spike at all. But yeah, generally speaking, the majority of people would have MORE money overall in practice, even after this form of inflation.

Now, one thing that would need to be addressed is reduced work effort. HOWEVER, this yet another reason I only support a UBI around the poverty line. The purpose of UBI is to give people the ability to say no, but as I've said in previous articles, I try to be pragmatic with recognizing the limits of my anti work ambitions. Obviously we have labor needs in society that need to be met, and while I understand UBI should make work more voluntary, I only support that freedom insofar as its sustainable by society. So...if we implement a UBI and 50% of the labor force quits overnight, that's bad. 

But...it probably won't come to that. Looking at the overwhelming majority of UBI oriented studies that have studied labor force participation, they often record little to no reductions in work. Because a true UBI near the poverty line isn't really enough for people to be comfortable and fulfilled. maybe the most work shy among us, the autistic anti work part time dog walkers of the world might decide to work a bit less, but most people like their stuff. They like their xboxes and their vacations and eating out and blah blah blah. So they're going to continue to work. I think in the 1970s the NIT studies at the time only recorded mild work reductions, mostly among housewives, single moms, and high school/college kids? And those are reductions that would largely be acceptable in society. They were the equivalent of shifting to a system in which European style vacations were the norm in America. So definitely sustainable.

 Here's the thing. If I offer you $1 to quit your job, would you take it? Probably not. If I offer you $1000, would you? Probably no, you probably make more than that in a month. What about $10k? Eh....you might on the spot, but would you stop seeking employment to live on $10k? Probably not. $20k? Maybe. $50k? Odds are you would. That said, the labor force participation reaction to UBI depends on the amount, and if UBI is high enough to satisfy all human needs without working. And here's the thing...most people, given an amount around $13k, probably wouldnt stop working. Maybe some would reduce hours. maybe some would quit if they're secondary earners, but all in all, the demand isn't gonna be a whole lot based on studies I've seen. You need a much higher UBI to actually discourage work effort in a meaningful way harmful to society.

And honestly, if it does happen, it just means that UBI is that high. Alternatively the fed could raise interest rates to halt new job creation, which would raise unemployment, leading to the end of inflation. So there are ways to deal with it.

Conclusion

I know I've written a lot here. And since your average reader is likely to be a leftist, since they're the ones who throw these inflation arguments around in a cynical fashion because they seem to hate markets in general and believe that nothing under capitalism will ever work because capitalism is evil, a lot of those probably isn't super relevant. But that's my most detailed answer I can give about UBI and inflation.

In terms of money supply, since the money supply is the same, inflation will not happen.

Redistributing money from the top to the bottom and middle might cause an increase in demand for goods and services, but I don't see rent being massively effected. Landlords can't just arbitrarily raise prices and expect to get more money. They exist in a market too and have to deal with competition which would keep prices in check. And it's not like demand for housing would massively increase, since people demand housing anyway. Since it's a basic need. And it's not like we have a massive housing shortage in this country as a whole. 

Most increased demand would likely go into more luxury type goods and services, as people would spend extra money on more luxuries, like vacations and xboxes. So, expect those prices to go up. 

On the demand pull side, a decrease in the supply of labor could cause pressure on wages, which could raise prices.

However, between the demand pull and cost push, let's not forget one major factor. It's really a matter of degree. To some extent, more demand is the result of people having more money, and higher wages is the result of workers having more bargaining power. Lefties are going to be for those things. Since the alternative is having higher unemployment, and lower wages, in order to reduce inflation.

We have this thing called the phillips curve in this country, and while supply constraints can break it, generally speaking, unemployment and inflation are inversely related. And lower inflation means higher unemployment, less worker bargaining power, and more poverty. If the left worries about UBI and inflation, these concerns are largely unfounded, because the inflation we would see from UBI is identical to the inflation that would occur from workers having more bargaining power, and having more money to spend. Obviously there comes a time where workers demand money that isn't there, causing prices to raise, causing demand for more raises, which causes prices to rise, leading to a wage price spiral, but assuming no such spiral occurs, then everything is fine. UBI is fine, within the constraints of this economic model. It's all a matter of degree. And while UBI might cause mild work disincentives, they can also be controlled within this model

That said, in implementing UBI, here are my recommendations

1) UBI is funded in a balanced budget way. No helicopter money, no stimulus out of nowhere. UBI is funded from tax increases and/or spending cuts elsewhere. 

2) The amount of UBI is kept close to the poverty line. This would do several things. It would alleviate poverty without increasing aggregate demand too much, and it would not discourage work effort too much.

UBI ultimately comes down to implementation. A bad implementation could be disastrous, but a good implementation won't cause any more inflation than any other left wing policies in society. If you're for labor unions, and strikes, and workers having more money, those things are inflationary too. And they too can go too far and be disastrous in terms of inflation. But...I don't see leftists complaining about those things. No, they only crap on UBI for reasons. But seriously though. Assuming a UBI is implemented well, it won't cause any more disruption in terms of inflation than any other social safety net, or any other labor oriented improvement to workers' lives. 

And while a true hardcore leftist might argue for universal basic services instead, that has a lot of downsides outside of the scope of this article that I've addressed in the past, so I'm not gonna open that can of worms here. 

What can of worms I WILL open is other leftist criticisms in relation to UBI that are directly related to the inflation question. For example, leftists love to scream UBI would destroy/reduce "welfare", but this is a good thing assuming people aren't made worse off in the process. Reducing existing welfare programs is how we stop UBI from being inflationary. We dont give poor people $300 in food stamps, but instead $300 in UBI. Yes, one replaces the other. That's not a problem. Leftists often scream we need UBI on top of welfare, but that would just be more inflationary, by increases aggregate demand, or increasing the money supply if paid for out of nowhere.

Leftists also impose unreasonable stipulations for funding a UBI, often calling for amounts well in excess of what I would. I advocate for a UBI of $1100 a month, or more broadly $1000-1250 a month. Leftists often make demands of $2000-3000 a month. But...if we did that...the labor response would be disastrous, it would be insanely expensive and rely on helicopter money to accomplish, or tax rates so high that it would implode the economy. Keep in mind the higher the amount the UBI the more inflation there is. Because it will increase demand, while decreasing worker output by discouraging work to too great of a degree. So there would be more demand for dwindling amounts of goods. So maybe if a leftist got their way, yeah, their UBI would destroy the economy through inflation. But that's because these leftists seem completely economic illiterate and seem to support dropping tons of helicopter money on people in ways that would implode the economy. 

But a decently designed UBI would not do that. A UBI of around $1100 a month funded via taxes and spending cuts would likely provide enough balance to greatly improve peoples' lives without destroying the economy and causing massive inflation. Which is why I support the UBI I do.

Should Doreen have resigned from r/antiwork?

 So...I feel like I'm probably well qualified to discuss this. I mean, I've actually been a poster on r/antiwork for longer than this blog has existed. And Doreen has been around that sub from the beginning, to my knowledge.

But, as we know, recent events have forced her out. She went on fox news, the backlash was bad, the posters claimed she didn't speak for them, and she was pressured into resigning control of the sub. Now I'm going to look at whether I think her resigning was the right decision. And, to give you a TLDR answer, I'm going to say no....but yes. The reasoning was bad, but given certain circumstances that have come to light, I think resigning was for the better.

Should she have resigned over the fox news interview? No

So...let's not sugar coat it, the interview was a disaster. It not only embarrassed Doreen, but it did make the sub bad. However, let's be honest. As someone who also has anti work views, it seemed quite clear given the nature of the interview, the big problem, in my mind, was that the interview was a trap. Doreen's appearance, nervousness, and messy room did not do her any favors, but the interview's primary purpose was to ask leading questions without giving the interviewee time to answer them properly, and then switching topics to keep the pressure on. Given anti work ideas are complex, and require a lot of explaining (you literally could have an entire philosophy class on the subject, ya know, like that which Doreen wants to teach, and in a sense Karl Widerquist currently IS teaching), being able to go on and given a 2 minute interview on fox news is going to be difficult. They are, by nature, difficult to explain in such an environment, and it was a tactical mistake to go on. Still, I don't think this is worthy of forcing her off the sub for.

Is she too extreme for the sub? No

Part of the reason why she resigned wasn't just because of a bad interview, but because she was deemed a poor representative of the movement. But I have a different take. In a sense, Doreen IS the movement. Doreen has been on that sub from the beginning, and has constantly created content for it. She was one of the ones who put together the side bar. Heck, she actually compiled a book of anti work reading material that I am currently reading. And she lives her ideals. Some people might think it's pathetic she walks dogs for 20 hours a week and wants to work less, but I see her as living her dream. After all, people who are hardcore anti work are not going to want to pursue careers. And while people like that aren't the best representatives to go on fox news, given how they're gonna circlejerk about work, there's nothing wrong with her perspective. it isn't gonna be popular, but it's legitimate.

The problem is that the user base of the sub is too moderate. They clearly have not taken it upon themselves to read any of the material presented, and the sub became coopted by "workers" who simply wanted a fair shake at work, without questioning the concept at all. So these newcomers, most of whom joined the sub in the past 2 years, scream that she doesn't represent them, but she actually is a representative of the true anti work movement. The problem is, the popular masses who joined the sub aren't really anti work, and they are quite frankly horrified that someone who actually is would dare represent the movement.

So now there's calls to moderate the sub, and given that the user base is succumbing to popular pressure, I fear that the movement might be coopted. Should she have been firmer in maintaining her position? Sure, but it depends on how. I would've just told the user base to screw off and left it at that. I would've been like, if you're not really anti work, why are you on the anti work sub? I'd happily let people leave and join r/workreform if it meant maintaining the ideological consistency of the movement. There's been a lot of tension there between the old timers, most of whom are anarchists, and the newcomers, most of whom were liberal. I was caught in between the two, being more liberal than most old timers, but more anti work than the newcomers. I would've just let people self select themselves off the sub. However, that's not what happened.

Did Doreen abuse her power?

So...Doreen responded in the most immature way possible. She started banning people criticizing her. Some deserved it, as some people were truly nasty, but a lot of them...didn't. Like, i'm not one for purging people who I disagree with. I might tell them to screw off and block them, but unless they're bad faith trolls, I wouldn't even bother with banning people. 

Eventually they took a more responsible action, they shut the sub down for a day as they let everyone cool off a bit. And by the time it reopened, things change. r/workreform took off. And even I shifted my opinion, originally being in the "yeah Doreen bombed that" to "no wait, no, we shouldn't be moderating the sub's mission due to popular demand, the normies can screw off if they don't like it." But, Doreen stepped down, and another moderator who was an unemployed anarchist was forced out too.

I didn't like these changes. Why should people who actually oppose work and try to live out their ideals in reality by...not working, not be leaders in the sub? Is no place safe from obsessive jobism (another "Doreen" term, actually, i got it from her website back in 2014), not even r/antiwork? if you cant express these views on r/antiwork, where can you express them? The future of the sub remains unclear, but I'm gonna be honest, i don't like this direction.

Still, did she abuse her power in the last moments of the sub being up before it shut down? Yes. Should she be removed from that? Arguably yes. I don't agree with the exact reasons they removed her, but removing her for that was a good idea. No one should abuse power in the sub. Period.

What about these sexual assault allegations?

So, in light of this, some sexual assault allegations about Doreen have come to light, including a long apology about it on facebook, which is cringey to say the least. I'll warn you, adult topics are discussed in the post, and it might trigger some, so you have been warned, this is NSFW, but you can read her post on it here. It's very cringey. And...I'm gonna be brutally honest. People have been me tooed out of movements for far less. And I would say if she should've been removed for anything, it's not botching a fox news interview, it's this. So yes, maybe she should have been removed.

 Conclusion: right outcome, wrong reasoning

 So yeah, I've come to the conclusion Doreen definitely should've been removed from her position as moderator. But...the wrong reasoning was applied. I dont care what a bunch of normies who use r/antiwork to crap post about their crappy labor conditions actually think about someone who actually wants to abolish work. It's none of their business, and if they don't like the direction of the sub, they should've left. The whole point of the sub was to be anti work, and while I can understand how a lot of casuals who had misconceptions about the movement due to not educating themselves, I dont think Doreen should've caved to them.

However, at the same time, she kind of abused her power in lashing out against her critics, and she is also coming under fire for sexual assault allegations. Given those facts, yeah, she should resign.

It has nothing to do with her ideals. Make no mistake, I think Doreen is very intelligent, and while I don't always see eye to eye with her on subjects like say, anarchism, I do think we need voices like hers in the movement. And I think a lot of the hate and vitriol against her is illegitimate. Who cares what a bunch of work worshipping right wingers think? Screw them. And that includes the "moderates" who just want "work reform" too. Anti work has always been about being against work as a concept. We might not agree on how, I'm one of those moderate basic income supporters who has a more karl widerquist approach to the concept, but at least I do believe we should work less and seek to abolish the concept in the long term. If you're just there to talk about wages and less overtime and more humane overlords, well, while "anti work" should spend time on that, that isn't the extent of our ambitions. And I think on that front Doreen did nothing wrong...except go on fox news, being the bad and unprepared public speaker that she was. 

At the same time...Doreen's behavior as of late...is questionable. And I don't think that banning people for criticizing her should be tolerated, nor should sexual assault allegations that she seemingly admitted to in a cringey way. 

Pushing back against "work reform"

 So...r/antiwork is back again, and it seems like the work reformists want to take over the sub, and the movement, calling for the mod team to quit, for Doreen's website to be scrubbed, blah blah blah.

The movement has grown an insane amount over the past 2 years. And it seems like many of the newcomers have missed the point. The point is the ANTI WORK movement...is to be ANTI WORK. Now, if some people wanna split off and form r/workreform, fine. I've already decided I dont really care for the direction that sub is going in the first place. I'm not a mere reformer, I'm actually AGAINST WORK, and believe in the long term we should abolish it. I don't always agree with r/antiwork's anarchist direction, as my approach is much more moderate and compatible with already existing institutions, but I do believe that the ideal work day, in the distant future, is 0 hours. And 0 minutes. I don't believe we should strive to work, but strive to eliminate work so we can spend our lives doing something else.

But...it seems like the sub got taken over by a bunch of reformists who simply wanted to share memes crapping on their bosses and just wanted...better hours with better pay, and didn't really want to question the concept. While Doreen's interview on fox news was, unequivocally, an unmitigated disaster, the reaction from that sub is far worse. Because now these guys, in trying to distance themselves from Doreen, are seeking to move the movement right, to not really be about being against work any more, but simply trying to reform it.

To me, this is like seeking more compassionate overlords. We need people like Doreen, and movements like hers, to counter the insane protestant work ethic in society. That's why she said "laziness is a virtue". Because we see slavish dedication to work as a virtue, and she was trying to be the anti that. Now...regardless, bringing this message to fox was a bad idea, especially with her as the messenger. Someone like her is best working behind the scenes, writing articles, but not drawing much attention to themselves in public, because as a PR person she's the exact wrong image. Just because we have to pivot our message to different audiences doesn't mean we have to abandon core ideals. 

I'm ANTI WORK. I'm sorry. I want to abolish the concept. Not in some anarchistic way of going back to the stone age, that's never gonna work and one of the reasons the anti work movement gets relentlessly mocked. If you're gonna have the gall to be anti work, you need to actually have a plan to get there. Which is why I spend so much time outlining how we can accomplish our goals, like UBI. Something I learned as a conservative, is all of these awesome left wing ideas are just fantasies until you can find a way to enact them. And I've managed to do that.

Another reason why I feel like I need to push back hard against "work reformists" is because if we cave to them, the movement for an actual anti work movement is lost. We've had these debates before. People tend to forget, but back in the early days of capitalism, being against wage labor was a common sentiment among a lot of leftists. But then, leftists organized, formed unions, started making progress with reforms like the 40 hour work week, OSHA, FLSA, minimum wage, etc., and they just decided, you know what? There's DIGNITY in work. And even now, we have weird labor types pushing these "dignity of work" sentiments, arguing for better conditions, but never truly being against work. If anything they're FOR work, and for wage slavery. And because of their success, the anti work movement has been lost for nearly 100 years. No one dared question work entirely. It was all reformist traditions. Which became the kinds of FDR liberalism and Bernie Sanders social democracy that we often see in politics at best. 

I always feel like I need to quote this, but to put it out there again:

Liberals say we should end employment discrimination. I say we should end employment. Conservatives support right-to-work laws. Following Karl Marx’s wayward son-in-law Paul Lafargue I support the right to be lazy. Leftists favor full employment. Like the surrealists — except that I’m not kidding — I favor full unemployment. Trotskyists agitate for permanent revolution. I agitate for permanent revelry. But if all the ideologues (as they do) advocate work — and not only because they plan to make other people do theirs — they are strangely reluctant to say so. They will carry on endlessly about wages, hours, working conditions, exploitation, productivity, profitability. They’ll gladly talk about anything but work itself. These experts who offer to do our thinking for us rarely share their conclusions about work, for all its saliency in the lives of all of us. Among themselves they quibble over the details. Unions and management agree that we ought to sell the time of our lives in exchange for survival, although they haggle over the price. Marxists think we should be bossed by bureaucrats. Libertarians think we should be bossed by businessmen. Feminists don’t care which form bossing takes so long as the bosses are women. Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working. 

From Bob Black's "The Abolition of Work"

 Here's the thing. Without anti work...the work reform movement is just rank liberalism, social democracy, or socialism. All of those guys are work reformers who dont believe in abolishing work. Without being anti work, you just have mainstream left wing politics. The point of being anti work...is to be anti work. So no. Don't crap on Doreen just because she was a bad and tone deaf messenger who decided to go on fox news. Her ideas are based mostly. And just to rant a little more. I don't understand how people on the anti work sub could miss this. I mean, it's right in the name. Doreen's website was right in the sidebar. They had a massive reading list of anti work literature, and then these normal libs came in and are just like "this is our movement now, you dont represent us". Uh...I'm sorry, but I'm on the r/antiwork mod team's side on this one. It was their sub. And they're anti work. And they just allowed liberals to exist there. And I thank them for it. Because I myself am just a pro UBI lib compared to most of them. Hence why I take potshots at purity testing leftists on here so much. But...unlike these new uppity libs, they don't even believe in the core concept. It's baffling.

Maybe they should just gtfo if they don't accept the basic premise of being against forced wage labor and join some more normie lib and leftist subs. There are enough of them. No need to bring the one place that actually is against work down because you can't wrap your heads around the core message.

Succinctly demonstraring that "antiwork" is divorced from the left-right divide

I keep coming across this as I try to navigate the whole anti work schism. I dont fit in among the "work reformists", because quite frankly, I don't want to reform work but abolish it. But at the same time, when I try to talk to actual anti work supporters, they think you can't be anti work without being leftist.

That said I just devised this handy dandy chart for showing people how the concept of anti work is divorced from the left-right divide.

So...this should be a nice, easy to understand chart. It's not intended to be inclusive to all ideologies, so if your super special ideology isn't there, don't worry about it. I was just trying to give a general overview of the divide. 

To discuss each category

Pro work right

To the benefit of many of the anti work lefties, most mainstream capitalist ideologies are pro work. Conservatives are vociferously pro work. They're the guys who always brag about how miserable they are, and how many hours they work, but take pride in it and see it as a badge of honor. These guys live to work. 

Liberals are a bit softer. They understand that capitalism has some flaws, but want to do little to change the core of worker relations. They're often criticized by leftists of wanting more humane corporate overlords, blah blah blah. They just understand that wage slaves should, you know, be given mild labor protections.

Social democrats support stronger labor protections. They do support MILD anti work goals in the "work reform" tradition, mainly aimed at slightly lower (like 30 hour) work weeks and higher pay. But...having seen the UBI debate play out in these countries, many of them are anti UBI and the like because they believe in reciprocity. Meaning they think the state should do everything they can for their people, but they also believe to earn that treatment, people should work. So socdems are often strongly for work. In America, in the more progressive and Bernie tradition, this often takes the form of support for FDR's bill of rights, which includes a job guarantee. 

 Much like conservatives, right libertarians are often extremely pro work. While they would say on the surface that their ideology doesnt force anyone to do anything, they ignore the soft power of institutions imposing wage slavery on people and tend to ignore that whole aspect of philosophy. So often times you end up being forced to work, with them just saying "well that's how life is." Most right libs are more obsessed with the state oppressing them and are more likely to scream about taxes and labor laws attempting to influence and improve labor relations, believing that there shouldn't be laws regulating such things, and that taxes and safety nets shouldn't exist. 

Even some left libertarians fall into this camp, despite most anti workers being left libertarian to some extent. Georgists, for example, aren't really against work. They just think that there should be a land value tax and that that's the only just form of tax. While they would argue the citizen's dividend or UBI would free some people from labor, it isn't really an intended part of their ideology, and in practice they're not really against work. They tend to actually be quite pro work. 

Pro work left

I've been saying it for a while, but most socialists are actually pro work. A lot of democratic socialists are also pro work. Again, the sanders tradition. They support socialism, but they also support job guarantees. They do generally believe in work at their core.

However, the larger batch of socialists generally are even more pro work. Tankies, marxist leninists, and other auth left are EXTREME on the pro work scale. Just look no further than Russia, or China, or North Korea, or Cuba. In these kinds of places, they have extreme "if you don't work you dont eat" attitudes, and many may also force anti workers who they seem as "lumpen" into work camps and gulags. The auth left is no friend to the anti work movement. 

Anti work left

So...generally speaking, who IS anti work? Well, most actual anti work people are some form of "left libertarian". This is true both on the left and the right, which is why there might be such a weird feeling among the left that you can't be anti work without being left. But if we define "left" as "anti capitalist", we see a slightly different picture, as the anti work movement fractures into two different, distinct camps.

To be fair, the bulk of anti work supporters ARE "leftists". Mostly in the form of anarchism. The mods of r/antiwork and the most forward representatives of the movement are anarchists. David Graeber, and people like that also subscribe to anarchism. There are other traditions, I could see libertarian socialists and some demsocs being somewhat anti work, believing to give people resources regardless of effort via some "universal basic services"scheme, but I'm not sure how dedicated some of these guys are, and I could see some of these socialists ended up in the work work left. Most socialists actually are pro work at their core, after all. But libertarian ones are often significantly less so. 

Anti work right

Ah, so this is where we get to it, the ideologies that are anti work, but somehow still capitalist. To really understand it, here's another handy dandy chart, this one from wikipedia. This is a chart of libertarianism. Separating left and right libertarianism. Notice how there are two orbs on the left wing side that don't fall within libertarian socialism. You have georgists, who I already discussed as pro work, and the steiner vallentyne school, which is where the magic happens.

A lot of anti work, pro UBI traditions on the right, fall within the steiner-vallentyne school. This tradition started with phillipe van parijs, who in an era where the left was reeling from the successes of neoliberalism in the 1980s and 1990s, sought to come up with a "new left" to differentiate himself from the old left. And in doing so, he asked, "what, if anything, could justify capitalism?" In the process, he came up with his ideology of "real libertarianism", arguing that a UBI of the highest sustainable amount would free people to do whatever they want to do in life. And that would, essentially, include being free to work and not work, implicitly speaking. I'm not sure van parijs was explicitly anti work, but "real libertartianism" seemed to be the roots of some anti work traditions on the "capitalist right." 

Karl Widerquist expanded this in 2013 with his theory of indepentarianism, where he basically said that for a system like capitalism, one that holds that private property is sacred and denies the commons and the resources to the average person, to exist in an ethical fashion, that they would need to provide a universal basic income so that people could be free from being coerced to participate in the system, ie, work. He argues people should be free to say no, not just to any jobs, but all jobs. Widerquist does seem to have anarchist tendencies at times, but indepentarianism, at its core, is compatible with capitalism. 

And he actually would cite some right libertarians like even Milton Friedman as influences at times. A handful of right libs ARE UBI advocates after all, and while they didn't seem to be explicitly for work refusal, they generally saw UBI as the most ethical and freedom preserving way to create a safety net, as it would minimize state overreach. 

So...the anti work right, mostly exists within the more mild forms of left libertarians. It would be noted not all UBI advocates are inherently anti work. Andrew Yang, for example, often frames it from a pro work perspective, despite his idea clearly having some anti work appeal. But...he (tactfully) chooses not to tap into that framing, because let's face it, as evidenced from the r/antiwork debacle today, it isn't always a good idea to frame issues that way if you want public support. Hence why I am a yang supporter despite not necessarily agreeing with him on the work issue. We're close enough where it doesn't matter. As long as the sausage is made the sausage is made, and I would argue UBI is the best way to achieve anti work goals.

Conclusion

So....again, to use a scott santens term, much like UBI, the anti work movement isnt necessarily left or right, but forward. It LEANS left, with most supporters being some degree of anti capitalist, but there are pro capitalist traditions. It's not that pro capitalist anti work supporters are over the moon enthusiastic supporters of capitalism. Most are kind of like, yeah this system has flaws, but UBI and/or other similar measures can reform it. So we're still like....within social democratic or mild left libertarian traditions. But we ARE capitalists. Just left leaning ones. Only the most ardent right capitalists like the likes of milton friedman were remotely anti work, and even then I dont think right libs are explicitly anti work. It just so happens their ideas occasionally align with the movement when implemented a certain way. 

But yeah. There are anti work leftists, there are pro work leftists. I would argue most leftists are pro work in some capacity. Actual anti work people on the left are a minority and mostly found among more anarchist type traditions. 

But...there are also anti work capitalists, and pro work capitalists. Again, most capitalists ARE pro work. I'd say the vast overwhelming majority of capitalists are pro work. BUT...there are traditions that are anti work. They're often found among the UBI supporters. Not included above, but some might also support automation and reducing the work week via social democratic approaches. The point is, the left does NOT hold a monopoly on anti work as a concept, and heck, for all the praise and circlejerking that the left does about anticapitalism and how great it is, most of them are STILL FOR work. "Workers are entitled to all that they create" is a pro work sentiment common among leftists.

So yeah. The whole point of this article is to try to tone down the leftist gatekeeping. Some of us capitalists ARE ANTI WORK. And many leftists, ARENT anti work. That's not to say most anti work people aren't on the left. I'd argue the anarchist group of them is much larger than the more capitalist UBI tradition. But I'm just saying, they don't have a monopoly on the concept and nothing about leftism inherently means that they will have anti work conclusions. Heck I'd still argue MOST leftists are PRO work.

https://imgur.com/aSXp03Q